REP PC 056 05/19/1997 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PC 56 Page 2 May 19, 1997 Soils of the subject property are classified as "B" (Good) fronting Mamalahoa Highway and "C" (Fair) for agricultural productivity by the Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System. The soils within the subject property are classified as "Prime" agricultural land by the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) system. Water is available through an existing 6-inch county water line along Mamalahoa Highway. The existing dwelling is presently served by a 5/8 inch water meter. Surrounding lands to the north and east of the subject property are zoned A-40a and properties along Mamalahoa Highway, directly across and southeast of the subject property are zoned A-5a and A-3a. Properties located one mile east toward Honokaa are zoned A-3a. An archaeological study was not conducted. Due to former and existing agricultural activities and the development of a homesite, significant surface archaeological sites are not anticipated to be located within the property nor any endangered plants and animal species are known to inhabit the property. Your Committee concurs with the following reasons by the Planning Commission and the Planning Director for recommending a favorable consideration for the change of zone request: 1. The zone request conforms with the goals,policies and standards of the General Plan. 2. The zone request will be consistent with General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)Map which will designate the area for Low Density Urban and Intensive Agricultural. 3. All essential services and utilities, including water,wastewater and roadways will be provided. Because Your Committee Member Curtis Tyler owns a parcel west of the subject property and public concerns were expressed regarding Mr. Tyler's indirect conflict of interest, Your Committee granted Mr. Tyler's request to abstain from voting on Bill No. 86. Your Committee amended Bill No. 86 by including conditions and language used consistently in similar zoning bills, including the prohibition of a second dwelling unit on each lot. The applicant's representative raised concern relating to the standard water commitment payment condition. Although it was clarified that the payment was not the facilities charge but rather the deposit to secure the applicant's water commitment, Your Committee requested an explanation from the Department of Water Supply for requiring this condition. PC REPORT NO. 56